It's not Gene Smith's fault that we have more players on IR than any other team in the league. It's not his fault that we did last year either. It's not his fault that we have a ton of injuries on the O-Line. It's not his fault that the two best players on the D have missed the first two games.

It's his fault that Guy Whimper has a job, but not his fault that he has a starting job.

It's not his fault that Clint Session decided to not report his first concussion and is now unable to play still.

The only thing that is Gene's fault is that we aren't incredibly deep everywhere (and what team is?), and that the passing game needs work still.

The team is 0-2, but so are a lot of other teams.Let's put away the pitchforks.

I have to take issue with the bolded.

Given who Gene has put in place on the O-Line...i think it is largely his fault that we're playing with this ragtag crew right now. If you have the sort of injury prone and unproven characters that we do in our 'starting group'; as a GM, i think it's Gene's responsibility to account for that, and provide a better backup plan than he's put on the field here.

Same goes for a pair of our 'best defensive players' including a guy like Cox whose health i'd characterize as, 'unreliable at best'.

It's not Gene's fault that these players are injury prone...but it is his fault that we don't have a legitimate 'plan B' to deal with that.

At the end of the day, Gene is responsible for the level of talent we put on the field each week...and realistically, it just isn't good enough.

I also have a real bone to pick regarding the defensive play we've seen this year. After last year, there was a lot of talk about how this group was a couple players away from 'elite' (if healthy). The 'health issue' is as i addressed above. It's unfortunate, but i'm not going to accept that as a complete acquittal here. And last year, with our offense as impotent as it was, i really do think it flattered our defensive group at times, with teams 'shutting it down' to various extents, without much worry that this offense was going to come back on them. I think we're seeing the carryover from that this year, combined with a whole bunch of ugly new issues that are rearing their ugly heads. At the top of the list, being fundamentals like tackling the guy with the football. It's not complicated.

iPwnJoined: 10 Oct 2009Posts: 49919Location: The Great State of Chicago

Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 8:38 pm Post subject:

Tugboat wrote:

I have to take issue with the bolded.

Given who Gene has put in place on the O-Line...i think it is largely his fault that we're playing with this ragtag crew right now. If you have the sort of injury prone and unproven characters that we do in our 'starting group'; as a GM, i think it's Gene's responsibility to account for that, and provide a better backup plan than he's put on the field here.

Same goes for a pair of our 'best defensive players' including a guy like Cox whose health i'd characterize as, 'unreliable at best'.

It's not Gene's fault that these players are injury prone...but it is his fault that we don't have a legitimate 'plan B' to deal with that.

At the end of the day, Gene is responsible for the level of talent we put on the field each week...and realistically, it just isn't good enough.

And if he had used picks on these positions to fill in depth, we'd just be hearing complaints about how we don't have good players at other positions.

That is a massive overhaul. Yes, it could be better, but it's certainly not bad considering how quickly this team has been built. When healthy, this isn't a bad team. They just don't have the depth to sustain injuries to key players and continue working as a uniform unit._________________Jaguars | Cubs | Blackhawks | Spartans | Lakers | Fire

Given who Gene has put in place on the O-Line...i think it is largely his fault that we're playing with this ragtag crew right now. If you have the sort of injury prone and unproven characters that we do in our 'starting group'; as a GM, i think it's Gene's responsibility to account for that, and provide a better backup plan than he's put on the field here.

Same goes for a pair of our 'best defensive players' including a guy like Cox whose health i'd characterize as, 'unreliable at best'.

It's not Gene's fault that these players are injury prone...but it is his fault that we don't have a legitimate 'plan B' to deal with that.

At the end of the day, Gene is responsible for the level of talent we put on the field each week...and realistically, it just isn't good enough.

And if he had used picks on these positions to fill in depth, we'd just be hearing complaints about how we don't have good players at other positions.

That is a massive overhaul. Yes, it could be better, but it's certainly not bad considering how quickly this team has been built. When healthy, this isn't a bad team. They just don't have the depth to sustain injuries to key players and continue working as a uniform unit.

That is true, and i'm not entirely condemning Gene. Certainly not saying he needs to be fired ASAP or anything of the sort. I just don't agree with the notion that putting a subpar team on the field due to injuries isn't largely the responsibility of the GM. It's injuries...they happen, a lot. But ultimately, this team is still a long way off from the sort of depth where we can cope with a couple important injuries. Real contender depth. And that's on the GM.

So i do think there are questionmarks there, regarding the job Gene has done thus far. Not 'sky is falling' fire Gene sort of questionmarks...but i think it needs to be considered.

You can list most GM's moves over a period that long, and it's going to be a pretty significant stack of acquisitions. That's sort of the problem. We're moving in the right direction i think...but so are a lot of other teams...just as quickly. Obviously there are a lot of extenuating circumstances around his building program, like the financial side of things. But i do think you need to take a wider scope when looking at a 'rebuild' in today's NFL, outside of just draft performance. Trades, FA, roster decisions...also crucial elements. And outside of 2011, i don't think his performance in FA has been all that good.

But hey, this season is still young. We'll see where it takes us, but looking at the weakness of this division right now as a whole (outside the Texans), these are years where a team like the Jaguars could really make hay...and we've been in the midst of some sort of 'building process' for longer than some of our competitors, yet don't seem all that far ahead at all...

iPwnJoined: 10 Oct 2009Posts: 49919Location: The Great State of Chicago

Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 9:37 pm Post subject:

I'm not sure there's one other team in the league that has had that type of 4 offseason turnover. And if there are, either that team has an elite QB or they are trash too.

The whole rebuild hinges on Gabbert. If he turns into Aaron Rodgers, suddenly everything else that Gene has done will look so much better, and if he turns into JaMarcus Russell, it'll make everything else look that much worse._________________Jaguars | Cubs | Blackhawks | Spartans | Lakers | Fire

Can I get a breakdown of the game? I didn't get to watch and don't want to go through this thread that has post filled with emotion that might make me think of something more dramatically than I should._________________
Thank you daboyle250 for the sig.

I'm not sure there's one other team in the league that has had that type of 4 offseason turnover. And if there are, either that team has an elite QB or they are trash too.

The whole rebuild hinges on Gabbert. If he turns into Aaron Rodgers, suddenly everything else that Gene has done will look so much better, and if he turns into JaMarcus Russell, it'll make everything else look that much worse.

So what happens if he becomes a Flacco? or a Freeman? or even a Cutler?

It's those grey areas where a GM earns their keep. Yes, you're right in that the right/wrong QB will make or break a team...but it's not always as blatant as Rodgers/Jamarcus. And realistically...i'm not convinced that you could plug Brady/Manning/Brees/Rodgers into this team and have them be a true contender right now. It wouldn't hurt...but there are more problems than that.

And if you're going to include depth tinkering as 'massive turnover', i think there are teams that have seen the same sort of changes we have overall. The depth tinkering just seems to hold more weight for us, because so often those depth players become starters as the injury grind takes hold.

iPwnJoined: 10 Oct 2009Posts: 49919Location: The Great State of Chicago

Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:12 pm Post subject:

Mr. V wrote:

Can I get a breakdown of the game? I didn't get to watch and don't want to go through this thread that has post filled with emotion that might make me think of something more dramatically than I should.

Position by position here

QB
Gabbert was off with the receivers, but was generally making the right read. I don't remember any throws being the wrong one. The Texans were just playing good coverage, and his placement wasn't great. He left with a hamstring injury and is getting a MRI this week.

RB
MJD looked good, but he had no holes to work with. He needs to notice the cutback lanes better, but he's not a problem.

WR/TE
Could not get separation all day. Many catchable balls were missed.

OL
Monroe played excellent. Uche did a decent job on Watt, but he should have kept him engaged more. The lack of engagement led to several tipped passed. Everyone else sucked/I didn't think were very good.

Offense overall
The team could just not get into a groove today, and anytime they showed signs of life, they killed it with a penalty.

DT
Another good showing. Mosley and Knighton were effective, despite not showing up on the stat sheet. Alualu had an okay game, but was up and down.

DE
Could not get pressure. They did a decent job of containment, but just couldn't get a push.

LB
Pos looked good, Allen looked decent and was in on a lot of tackles. As a group, they weren't good. It's like they were lacking cohesion. They were abused with the short pass/screen game all game long. That, and missed tackles were highly problematic.

CB
They appeared to do great in coverage, as the Texans seemed scared to move the ball downfield. I think that helped cause more problems for the LBs, as all the passes funneled to them. Ross had problems tackling.

S
Similar "review" as the CBs. Coverage was good, tackling was okay, but had some issues.

Defense overall
Tackling issues, underneath passes and the inability of the offense to sustain a drive led to the defense being on the field too much. They seemed to hold up well despite this, and the incredible heat and humidity.

K
The only use was on the two kickoffs, and he put them both into the back of the endzone

P
Just incredible

Return team
Solid showing.

Coverage unit
Solid. There were a few uncalled blocks in the back that led to good returns, so the stat line doesn't show how good they played._________________Jaguars | Cubs | Blackhawks | Spartans | Lakers | Fire

iPwnJoined: 10 Oct 2009Posts: 49919Location: The Great State of Chicago

Posted: Sun Sep 16, 2012 10:17 pm Post subject:

Tugboat wrote:

So what happens if he becomes a Flacco? or a Freeman? or even a Cutler?

Then this team should be good enough to be a Bears/Ravens/Falcons/Cowboys/Chargers type team.

Quote:

It's those grey areas where a GM earns their keep. Yes, you're right in that the right/wrong QB will make or break a team...but it's not always as blatant as Rodgers/Jamarcus. And realistically...i'm not convinced that you could plug Brady/Manning/Brees/Rodgers into this team and have them be a true contender right now. It wouldn't hurt...but there are more problems than that.

You put any of those players on this team, and let the team be relatively healthy, and they're a Super Bowl contender. They're a WC type team with the injuries we have. This team was nearly a playoff team two years ago with Garrard, and we've gotten better across the board outside of the QB position.

Quote:

And if you're going to include depth tinkering as 'massive turnover', i think there are teams that have seen the same sort of changes we have overall. The depth tinkering just seems to hold more weight for us, because so often those depth players become starters as the injury grind takes hold.

Can I get a breakdown of the game? I didn't get to watch and don't want to go through this thread that has post filled with emotion that might make me think of something more dramatically than I should.

Position by position here

QB
Gabbert was off with the receivers, but was generally making the right read. I don't remember any throws being the wrong one. The Texans were just playing good coverage, and his placement wasn't great. He left with a hamstring injury and is getting a MRI this week.

RB
MJD looked good, but he had no holes to work with. He needs to notice the cutback lanes better, but he's not a problem.

WR/TE
Could not get separation all day. Many catchable balls were missed.

OL
Monroe played excellent. Uche did a decent job on Watt, but he should have kept him engaged more. The lack of engagement led to several tipped passed. Everyone else sucked/I didn't think were very good.

Offense overall
The team could just not get into a groove today, and anytime they showed signs of life, they killed it with a penalty.

DT
Another good showing. Mosley and Knighton were effective, despite not showing up on the stat sheet. Alualu had an okay game, but was up and down.

DE
Could not get pressure. They did a decent job of containment, but just couldn't get a push.

LB
Pos looked good, Allen looked decent and was in on a lot of tackles. As a group, they weren't good. It's like they were lacking cohesion. They were abused with the short pass/screen game all game long. That, and missed tackles were highly problematic.

CB
They appeared to do great in coverage, as the Texans seemed scared to move the ball downfield. I think that helped cause more problems for the LBs, as all the passes funneled to them. Ross had problems tackling.

S
Similar "review" as the CBs. Coverage was good, tackling was okay, but had some issues.

Defense overall
Tackling issues, underneath passes and the inability of the offense to sustain a drive led to the defense being on the field too much. They seemed to hold up well despite this, and the incredible heat and humidity.

K
The only use was on the two kickoffs, and he put them both into the back of the endzone

P
Just incredible

Return team
Solid showing.

Coverage unit
Solid. There were a few uncalled blocks in the back that led to good returns, so the stat line doesn't show how good they played.

that's a very solid, level-headed breakdown of today...which was a very unlevel game.

i'm not sure i agree with MJD looking good, but outside of that...pretty bang on.

So what happens if he becomes a Flacco? or a Freeman? or even a Cutler?

Then this team should be good enough to be a Bears/Ravens/Falcons/Cowboys/Chargers type team.

Quote:

It's those grey areas where a GM earns their keep. Yes, you're right in that the right/wrong QB will make or break a team...but it's not always as blatant as Rodgers/Jamarcus. And realistically...i'm not convinced that you could plug Brady/Manning/Brees/Rodgers into this team and have them be a true contender right now. It wouldn't hurt...but there are more problems than that.

You put any of those players on this team, and let the team be relatively healthy, and they're a Super Bowl contender. They're a WC type team with the injuries we have. This team was nearly a playoff team two years ago with Garrard, and we've gotten better across the board outside of the QB position.

Quote:

And if you're going to include depth tinkering as 'massive turnover', i think there are teams that have seen the same sort of changes we have overall. The depth tinkering just seems to hold more weight for us, because so often those depth players become starters as the injury grind takes hold.

Over 80% of the team wasn't here when Gene took over.

i'm just not sure on that. i have a hard time imagining that stud QB would've saved us in a game like today. i'm by no means going to break out my pom poms and be a Gabbert cheerleader, but i also don't think he's bad enough that he's the only thing separating us from the playoffs.

I mean, you put Gabbert on the Bears on Thursday night and i think that's an even bigger mess of a game than it was. And yet, i have a very hard time imagining that Cutler on the Jaguars would've won us the game today...or even kept us close.